TubeNet

I'm trying to get an understanding of the similarities and differences between the Warburton/Kelly/Canadian Brass "Arnold Jacobs" mouthpieces.

I have come to the conclusion that the Kelly and the Canadian Brass models are one in the same.

One irregularity I've found is the difference between the regular/standard and solo models. The Kelly website lists the standard as having an inner rim diameter as 1.25" (31.75mm) and cup depth as 1.73 (43.94) while the solo has an inner rim diameter as 1.27 (32.28) and cup depth as 2.01 (51.05).

Wouldn't one expect the "solo" version of a certain mouthpiece to have a smaller inner rim diameter and/or a more shallow cup depth? From the dimensions, it seems as though the more orchestral version would be the solo version. Anybody have any info to share on this?

I can't find much of any information on the Warburton Arnold Jacobs models. Are they duplicates of the Canadian Brass/Kelley or are they different? The Warburton website speaks of a "J series" mouthpiece, but that seems to be significantly larger than the Kelley/Canadian Brass models.

Any info would be great!

One irregularity I've found is the difference between the regular/standard and solo models.

Here's another irregularity - Mr Jacobs never, ever saw the "solo" model! Don't know how they could put a person's name on a mouthpiece when they never saw it but they did. As far as the CB/Warburton, they are the exact same mouthpiece - Warburton made them both.

This whole thing turned out to be a total fiasco that's why I stopped selling them!

brianf wrote:This whole thing turned out to be a total fiasco that's why I stopped selling them!

Are you referring to the Arnold Jacobs "solo" model or the ownership/name stamped on mouthpiece? Which is the fiasco you speak of... or both?

It would seem as though the Arnold Jacobs "solo" model may be similar to the Conn Helleberg, while the Arnold Jacobs "standard" model may be similar to the Schilke Helleberg I.

Does anyone have any experience with the Arnold Jacobs models that would like to comment? Perhaps with comparisons to the Conn/Schilke Helleberg? Send me a PM if you're shy!

How can I say this?

A brass quintet came out with a mouthpiece that was a duplicate of one used by Arnold Jacobs - so far it's legit. Then they decided to switch manufacturers but sent the new guy the wrong mouthpiece. It was discovered this after making a batch. Now they had a batch of mouthpieces of unknown origin with Mr Jacobs' name on it. Problem is that Mr Jacobs never saw this mouthpiece, never used it never had any idea what this was - he passed away a few years before it ever came out. Instead of throwing these mouthpieces out, they called it the Jacobs "solo" model and Mr Jacobs isn't here to bitch about it.

I've played the "solo" mouthpiece, it's not bad. Would I buy one? No way becase a certain brass group did not have the respect for one of their teachers to put his name on a mouthpiece he never saw. Since this is to petty for a lawsuit, hopefully the word can get out and no one would buy the stupid thing.

There are a lot of other solo mouthpieces out there - buy one of them.

A bit of information: I have a mouthpiece that is marked "Warburton Arnold Jacobs" and is identical in every way to mouthpieces called "Canadian Brass Arnold Jacobs" EXCEPT that the former has a flatter rim than the latter. I am pretty sure both were made by Warburton.

I just got a new CB/Jacobs mouthpiece (not the solo) of eBay, I think they are made by Kelly now. Can anyone confirm this is the copy of Mr. Jacobs' main mouthpiece? What did Jacobs think of it? Brian?

By the way, is Terry Warburton back in tuba mouthpiece making now? I assume Kelly is making it because Warburton isn't.

just got a new CB/Jacobs mouthpiece (not the solo) of eBay, I think they are made by Kelly now. Can anyone confirm this is the copy of Mr. Jacobs' main mouthpiece? What did Jacobs think of it? Brain?

The original CB is the same as the Warburton which is the same as the non solo Kelley.

Mr Jacobs did not have a main mouthpiece, he had some that were used more than others. The original Jacobs MP was a 1930's era Helleberg that was bored out.

Alex Reeder wrote:I have a mouthpiece that is marked "Warburton Arnold Jacobs" and is identical in every way to mouthpieces called "Canadian Brass Arnold Jacobs"

Chen wrote:I just got a new CB/Jacobs mouthpiece (not the solo) of eBay

Could you guys confirm the approximate size, according to inside rim diameter, of your Arnold Jacobs mouthpieces? I don't need a caliper measurement, just a comparison to other mouthpieces. The Kelly website lists it as 1.25" (31.75mm) which is about the same as a Schilke Helleberg I and smaller than a Bach 18 or Denis Wick 2. Another member of this board PM'd me and he measured his Arnold Jacobs non-solo and it about as big as a Schilke 69C4 (1.29" or 32.75mm)... larger than a Denis Wick 1 or Laskey 28 and a little smaller than a Laskey 30, PT-50 or Schilke Helleberg II.

It seems as though the Kelly website is incorrect or misleading.

quinterbourne wrote:Could you guys confirm the approximate size, according to inside rim diameter, of your Arnold Jacobs mouthpieces?

I know you qualified this, but for the original poster and others, I would point out that published measurements are just slightly better than worthless. Distilling compound curved surfaces to a few measurements is nearly impossible. At what point do we measure rim diameter? At the point where the rim touches a flat surface? At the point where the curvature goes from convex to concave? Some specific distance from the front face? No two people are likely to measure the rim the same way without there being a specific measurement standard.

Throat diameter is easier, because you can measure it by inserting finely graduated drill bits until one doesn't fit. But where is that minimum throat? Is it right at the bottom of the cup, or is there a gentle reverse curve from the concavity of the cup to the narrowest part of the throat? And how do you measure cup depth? Is it measure from a flat bar across the rim to the location of the minimum throat diameter? To the start of the throat curve? From the point where the rim curve turns into the cup curve? And I've never seen any dimensions published that describe the bowl shape of the mouthpiece.

I suggest not trying to compare mouthpieces using measurement with any expectation that a measurement's accuracy is anywhere close to the precision with which is is reported.

If you want to compare popular models generally, the table on Doug Elliott's web page is probably as good as any. But he provides the same warnings as I have.

Rick "who buys (preferably used) mouthpieces that might be useful, and then sells them or returns them if they show no promise" Denney

I tried the warburton arnold jacobs for a few weeks this spring, looking for something a bit deeper than my schilke helleberg II, but with a narrow diameter.

for me, it was not very comfortable, as the PT-88 was similar. what disturbed me most is that it did not project my overtones as the schilke helleburg II did.

also at this time, i tried the laskey 30-H, the sidey SSH, PT-44 and -50.

finally, I ended up choosing the sidey for my groovy bass-line stuff and the PT-50 for the orchestra - not at all what I expected.

Rick Denney wrote:

quinterbourne wrote:Could you guys confirm the approximate size, according to inside rim diameter, of your Arnold Jacobs mouthpieces?

I know you qualified this, but for the original poster and others, I would point out that published measurements are just slightly better than worthless.

Slightly better than worthless is still better than nothing.

Diameter is really not that ambiguous. Any of my mouthpieces, it seems fairly clear to me where the cup diameter ought to be measured. There's some arguable grey area, but it's the least of my measurement error problems.

Depth is different. Maybe it would be easier to measure volume. And "funnel" vs. "bowl" ... maybe easy to measure in principle, but I guess you'd need a special purpose gauge.

But they're worth talking about, if we have any intention to talk about mouthpieces in more useful terms than "works for me."

Donn wrote:But they're worth talking about, if we have any intention to talk about mouthpieces in more useful terms than "works for me."

The problem is connecting those measurements to results in any meaningful way. Measurements have been made for years, and many are written down in Doug's table that I mentioned, but nobody has translated those measurements into results. Resonance is a picky thing, and highly depends on the shape and characteristics of the mouth that is stuck into the mouthpiece.

Heck, we don't even know how to talk about sound in important quantitative ways.

Rick "thinking the mouthpiece is one component of three, in third place in importance" Denney

This is an interesting topic in that some seem to be more sensitive to mouthpiece sizing and shape than others. While I don't care much for really rounded rims and find some mouthpieces to work slightly better on matters of tuning with some tubas, I can't honestly say that I'd be able to tell the difference between a "vintage" Helleberg and one without the knurled "wasit" without looking. I'm pretty sure that I could tell which had a larger throat, but that's about it.

Are there really folks who are this sensitive or are we just playing around with miniscules?

Rick Denney wrote:The problem is connecting those measurements to results in any meaningful way. Measurements have been made for years, and many are written down in Doug's table that I mentioned, but nobody has translated those measurements into results. Resonance is a picky thing, and highly depends on the shape and characteristics of the mouth that is stuck into the mouthpiece.

Heck, we don't even know how to talk about sound in important quantitative ways.

We could use better ways to talk about sound. I don't even know for sure what "bright" means. Maybe as close as anything, I know about bright from my mouthpieces - shallow bowl mouthpiece like a C4 is bright, right? Are you saying, we don't know that? I would go further to say that plenty of people know more about very roughly what to expect from a mouthpiece, than they can express in our limited vocabulary for sound - so maybe we ought to settle on some reference mouthpieces that everyone can have on hand, and it will open up new frontiers for discussion of sound.

My agenda here: like you, I like to buy mouthpieces that look interesting, but I guess unlike you, I don't find disposing of them so convenient that I'm willing to buy them purely at random. So I've ignored mouthpieces like the Dillon F1 that weren't described in any objective way, but, that one in particular turns out to actually be just the kind I like. So I would hate to see mouthpiece makers furnish only useless descriptions like "sonorous, dark tone of enormous volume" because they think that's what tuba players want. (That's Bach 24AW, if anyone read that and now must have one.)

Pictures also work - Mike Finn's cross section pictures are of course better than a thousand words.

Chuck(G) wrote:This is an interesting topic in that some seem to be more sensitive to mouthpiece sizing and shape than others. While I don't care much for really rounded rims and find some mouthpieces to work slightly better on matters of tuning with some tubas, I can't honestly say that I'd be able to tell the difference between a "vintage" Helleberg and one without the knurled "wasit" without looking. I'm pretty sure that I could tell which had a larger throat, but that's about it.

Are there really folks who are this sensitive or are we just playing around with miniscules?

I greatly doubt I could do better than you, but there seem to be two questions there. I don't know how similar the Hellebergs are, so don't know about that. Shape in general - I think I can tell the difference between a Marcinkiewicz H4 and H3, and I bet you could too, even though the difference is supposed to be just 0.065 inches depth. (Really, I wonder if that's right, because I didn't expect to be able to tell?) To the specific question at hand, could you tell a 1.25" rim from a 1.27"? I think people here claim they can.

Donn wrote:We could use better ways to talk about sound. I don't even know for sure what "bright" means. Maybe as close as anything, I know about bright from my mouthpieces - shallow bowl mouthpiece like a C4 is bright, right? Are you saying, we don't know that?

We know some bland generalities, of course, but that's all. And even those vary far more from player to player than from mouthpiece to mouthpiece. I know guys who get a rounder, fuller sound from supposedly bright-sounding small, shallow mouthpieces than I get from toilet bowls.

But I was helping someone choose a mouthpiece, and we tried a Conn Helleberg, a Kellyberg, a Laskey 30H, a PT-1, and a PT-2. All these mouthpieces are variations on the Helleberg design. With him playing and me listening, I could not tell any difference in sound between them. On the other hand, he could tell a difference in how they felt. While these mouthpieces are all similar, they are not the same. The differences between them had no material effect that would not be entirely specific to his face.

I think I'm prepared to believe that a subtle difference in one pair of mouthpieces might have a much bigger effect than a more dramatic difference in another pair, if that small difference happened to cross an important boundary. And resonance is not about smooth curves, it's about spikes in the solution space. Those spikes are hard enough to quantify with a known buzz, let alone in light of very real physical differences between embouchures and faces.

I don't choose my mouthpieces at random. I make choices within those bland generalities. I seek advice based on 1.) the instrument, 2.) what already works for me, 3.) the generally accepted subset of mouthpieces for that instrument, and 4.) the expertise the person whose advice I'm seeking, and then I experiment and choose within the range revealed. When I was looking for a mouthpiece for my B&S F tuba, for example, I knew there was a fairly small list of possibilities--a PT-64, an MF-4, and several others. I tried most of them, and the Finn MF-4 really glowed in the dark, as confirmed by expert listeners. And on my big tuba, the PT-48 just brings some zip to the sound (how's that for a quantitative description?) that all of those Hellebergish mouthpieces listed above didn't. But I'd be hard-pressed to explain why the PT-48 works better, and I have indeed considered the measurements.

I suppose my science is just good enough for me to realize just how empirical mouthpiece selection needs to be (based on how subjectively we measure the resullts), but not good enough to offer an alternative.

Rick "thinking that an understanding of mouthpiece won't come from a pair of calipers" Denney

No, calipers will not define mouthpiece performance. And a mouthpiece chart cannot be used like a technical manual. But a comparative mouthpiece chart can be used something like a naturalist's field guide in this respect: if you have something you don't like, but do have an idea on how you would like it different or where you would like to go, or have something you do like, but would like something "more" or of a different style for a different purpose, a good mouthpiece chart can help you narrow the universe to a few good options to try as you commence your mouthpiece safari.

Just consider the hundreds of different models there are out there between a Bach 32E and a Tilz 35, in addition to companies like Conn and Dillon who don't publish their specs, with all manner of cup geometries and rim profiles, in addition to the "raw" internal cup diameter that gets quoted the most. You gotta start someplace. To me, that is the usefulness of specs, to help you narrow the universe to a few reasonable choices, not to try to guess how a mouthpiece will do simply from raw numbers and a manufacturer's description.

iiipopes wrote:No, calipers will not define mouthpiece performance. And a mouthpiece chart cannot be used like a technical manual. But a comparative mouthpiece chart can be used something like a naturalist's field guide in this respect...

You do realize that I have mentioned twice now one of the best such charts available on the web, which is on Doug Elliott's site. But I include warnings against overconfidence in 1.) the meaning of these measurements, and 2.) our ability to make such measurements. This time, I'll even include a link:

http://www.dougelliottmouthpieces.com/mpccomp.html

Rick "suggesting that the Elliott TU-series R cup is most like the conventional Conn Helleberg" Denney

the elephant wrote:Insert photo of young girls with large beers.
Insert photo of juicy steak dinner.
This has been a food-photo-free post. Thank you for your support.

I sure miss seeing those large beers.

TubaRay wrote:I sure miss seeing those large beers.

No, you miss Doc's picture of the misses with the "large beers" (as do I... )